Murry v. Hale

203 F. Supp. 583, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4044
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas
DecidedMarch 30, 1962
DocketNo. LR-60-C-119
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 203 F. Supp. 583 (Murry v. Hale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murry v. Hale, 203 F. Supp. 583, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4044 (E.D. Ark. 1962).

Opinion

HENLEY, Chief Judge.

This suit in equity was brought by the trustee of the estate of Arkansas Business Development Corporation (ABDC), a bankrupt, against certain named defendants who are sued individually and as representatives of a class. After the action was commenced, additional parties intervened, aligning themselves with the defendants in opposition to the claims of the trustee.

The purpose of the suit is to secure an adjudication of ownership of and interests in certain securities, principally loan collateral such as mortgages, which securities are in the physical possession of plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the securities in question are assets of the bankrupt estate and should be liquidated with the proceeds being distributed to the general creditors of ABDC. Defendants and intervenors take the position that certain of the securities belong to them and that their claims are superior to those of the trustee.

The cause has been tried to the Court and submitted upon the pleadings and exhibits thereto, certain discovery material, a stipulation of facts, documentary evidence, oral testimony, and written briefs. This memorandum incorporates the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The record discloses that ABDC, an Arkansas corporation, was chartered in 1958 and engaged in the business of lending: money and making investments. The; corporation controlled four affiliates; which engaged in financial activities various kinds.1 Whether by reason of fraud, mismanagement, or some other cause ABDC was hopelessly insolvent by the spring of 1960. An involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against it on June 7,1960, and adjudication followed on June 20. Subsequently, plaintiff was named trustee of ABDC’s estate.

During the period of its operations ABDC sold stock to the public and solicited deposits of money for investment. In theory, the money deposited by a given investor would be used to purchase secured or unsecured notes or accounts receivable due merchants on account of merchandise sold to consumers, or to purchase notes secured by first or second mortgages on Arkansas real estate. The investments were supposed to yield interest at rates varying from ten to six percent per annum.

A considerable number of people, including defendants and intervenors, put money into the investment program. The total amount deposited was approximately $500,000, of which sum about $117,000 was refunded from time to time to certain investors. Interest amounting to about $38,000 was paid to depositors from month to month. The charges which ABDC made for the handling of investments were nominal, and it is difficult to see how ABDC planned to make any money legitimately out of the investment program.

Upon making a deposit with ABDC the depositor would sign an “account authorization” and would receive from ABDC a numbered “trust receipt.” With minor variations in verbiage and with differences as to interest rates the account authorizations and trust receipts were [586]*586standard in form. A typical account authorization and a typical trust receipt are reproduced herewith as Figure 1 and Figure 2.

[587]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Barnes
264 B.R. 415 (E.D. Michigan, 2001)
Richards v. Worthen Bank & Trust Co.
552 S.W.2d 228 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1977)
Beatrice R. Ruddle v. Luke C. Moore
411 F.2d 718 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 F. Supp. 583, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murry-v-hale-ared-1962.